On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote: > > [Boris Zbarsky:] > > > > On 10/3/11 11:41 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > Note that animating to/from display:none was not the original question > > > (though it's also worth discussing). > > > The question is: given animations applied to element E and/or its > > > descendants, what is the effect of making E display:none on these > > > animations ? > > > > OK; that's a very different question from the one I was worrying about, > > which was "Can a page start an animation on an element that is > > display:none or on its descendants?".... > > > > -Boris > Actually, that is also part of the question so allow me to expand on the > issues > I'd like to resolve: > > 1. Given an animation A currently running on E, what is the effect on A of > giving E > display:none ? > E and all its children should should be removed from the display. Animations and transitions on the children stop and go to their initial state. > 2. Given an element E with display:none, what is the effect of applying an > animation > A to E ? What happens when E is given non-none display after A is applied ? > Specifically, > when the element is given a visible display less t seconds of the animation > being applied, > with t being the animation's duration ? > I would expect that 1s animation to start after making the element visible and run for 1s. > 3. Given an animation A currently running on a descendent of E, what is the > effect on A of > giving E display:none ? > see above. Stop and reset A > 4. Given an element E with display:none, what is the effect of applying an > animation > A to a descendant of E ? nothing happens since the element is not part of the active displayed DOM > What happens when E is given non-none display after A is applied? Specifically, when the element is given a visible display less than t > seconds of the animation > being applied, with t being the animation's duration ? > the animation begins as soon as it becomes part of the active DOM. > Does that make sense ? And am I missing other interesting cases ? > > Same 4 questions for visibility but there seems to be consensus in this > case that there is no > difference between visibility:hidden and visibility:visible. > CorrectReceived on Monday, 3 October 2011 17:50:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:05 UTC